Hi, >> There wasn't a request made prior to it sending that 408, so >> something seems a bit fishy there, too. I could be completely missing >> something, though. > > It's *exactly* the purpose of 408 : indicate to the client that we're > fed up with waiting for it to send a request (hence the "request timeout" > message). > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26#section-6.5.7
Admittedly though the original specification does leave more room for interpretation than the updated one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.4.9 Good to see that those things are more strictly defined (and better explained) in the newer RFCs/drafts. That makes it easier for us when reporting RFC violations to our beloved vendors. Regards, Lukas
